Kung Fu In Combat

[shogeri]

Sparring, two man drills (such as sanshou), along with sticky hands (chi sao, lap sao, pac sao), and form practice and application are just as important in CMA, as they are JMA/IMA, etc.

Without these, then just practicing the form(s) and doing breathing or qi exercises, amounts to little else but calesthenics.

One must diligently perform all aspects of the Martial Art in order for it to be considered 'Martial'.

Making CMA into a sport, just as they have done TKD, has done little for it's true intrinsic value, which will be wasted if not applied correctly, for the proper amount of time.

So far as the video put into place on another thread ~ goes:

It is so apparent that the goofy looking 'kickboxer' fellow' is being out skilled by the wing chun.

I would be embarassed to call myself a kickboxer.

Later!

[bushido_man96]

Making CMA into a sport, just as they have done TKD, has done little for it's true intrinsic value, which will be wasted if not applied correctly, for the proper amount of time.

The sport aspect has not hurt the value of TKD, unqualified instructors have. There are some very good Olympic TKD athletes out there, with good form technique as well as fighting skills.

It is so apparent that the goofy looking 'kickboxer' fellow' is being out skilled by the wing chun.

I would be embarassed to call myself a kickboxer.

I think it was just as you said: a matter of skill level. There is always someone better.

[mantis.style]

I am sure that this is a western problem , monks do sparring every day, and last several hours.

Please don't bring "monks" into this because what they do does not relate to the majority of traditional martial arts and their authenticity is questionable. Also, I don't agree that Chi Sao is close combat; it is a training tool. It is a game where can experiment and test. It isn't fighting because it assumes your partner will move in a wing chun way. In fact, depending on how good you are, you can deliberately do things in a non-wing chun way just to mess up the flow. You can tell how good the other person is by how they react to non-wing chun in chi sau.

When you do fight, it is much closer to simple one step drills in that it is from a neutral position with a gap between you. You end up using things from chi sao drills but you don't fight with chi sao.

There is a problem I see in some classes in that they concerntrate too much on the game of chi sao to the point where fighting has been forgotten. Then there is the problem where people aren't taught how to close gaps properly and end up being too reactive which stems from too much chi sao because you anticipate getting into that range and forget basic side step, parry, pin hit drills; the bread and butter of wing chun.

[bushido_man96]

Please don't bring "monks" into this because what they do does not relate to the majority of traditional martial arts and their authenticity is questionable.

Could you elaborate on this point, please? I am interested in your opinion, as I don't know a whole lot about the monks.

[shogeri]

The philosophy of the martial art form is usually expressed by the instructor. Either they teach it as a sport with some Martial aspects or application, or they teach a method of fighting that is true to the concept of Martial Art.

Both are fine (Martial Sport & Martial Art) to learn and apply in everyday life. But they are oil and water when it comes to actual application on the street.

The Chinese Art can and are often used as they need to be. They are also viewed as a sport in some instances just as other styles are.

All I am saying that a person needs to investigate and research the schools in their area, and understand which instructors teach the sport applications, which teach traditional, which ones teach for combat, which ones teach primarily for health, and so on.

Find an instructor that matches your wants, needs, and expectations and then move forward from there.

If a person doesn't know what they want, then they should find a school, or find someone who has some decent references, and jump right in.

Also, just throwing people together and saying "fight" is not all there is to being a fighting art. Forms, two man drills, fighting principles, physical training, as well as mental training all play part in any style a person chooses.

Later!

[bushido_man96]

The philosophy of the martial art form is usually expressed by the instructor. Either they teach it as a sport with some Martial aspects or application, or they teach a method of fighting that is true to the concept of Martial Art.

You have a good point here, but I believe that an art can serve both purposes as well.

Both are fine (Martial Sport & Martial Art) to learn and apply in everyday life. But they are oil and water when it comes to actual application on the street.

This may be true, depending on the style. When it comes to TKD, yes the sport/fight applications do tend to differ quite a bit, especially if you are taking Olympic style TKD into consideration. However, a sport more MMA oriented will still have great street applications.

All I am saying that a person needs to investigate and research the schools in their area, and understand which instructors teach the sport applications, which teach traditional, which ones teach for combat, which ones teach primarily for health, and so on. Find an instructor that matches your wants, needs, and expectations and then move forward from there.

Excellent statement! It is very important to try to figure out what it is you are looking for when you decide to take up a martial style. Doing your homework is very important. It is just like shopping for a car; you test drive several, and then you make your decision.

[mantis.style]

The philosophy of the martial art form is usually expressed by the instructor. Either they teach it as a sport with some Martial aspects or application, or they teach a method of fighting that is true to the concept of Martial Art.....

.....All I am saying that a person needs to investigate and research the schools in their area, and understand which instructors teach the sport applications, which teach traditional, which ones teach for combat, which ones teach primarily for health, and so on.....

I don't think the instructor should be teaching anything other than the art he was taught i.e he should teach it as a dead thing for the student to interpret as they want to. The way I see it, if you teach an interpretation of something, you won't really teach the thing in it's entirety. I also don't believe that sport, combat or health aspects can really be removed from the traditional. Those aspects are things that you get from the original/traditional style and are just ways of performing or applying that traditional style. If you train in a traditional style, you should be able to take what you get out of it and apply in a sport environment, or real fight environment. Health is a side effect of practicing the style and shouldn't really be a reason for the training. If you are going into a martial art purely for health benefits, you are better off going to a specialised aerobics or similar class.

[Traditional-Fist]

OK then, let me rephrase and add some back story. One of my earliest classes involved me getting peppered with punches by a senior member of the class to see how I naturally deal with things.

How most people naturally deal with this type of thing is to either cover themselves or try to protect themselves/fight back in an incoherent manner, that is unless they have previous experience in another martial art.

Before my sifu was officially taught, his teacher paid some kids to beat him up.

I bet that was to encourage him to take up martial arts in the first place.

Hard training is done after basics, that is true BUT my basics was simple sparring.

I have nothing against "simple sparring" as it is part and parcel of kung fu training. What I meant is that over emphasis on so called "realistic sparring" from day one is not part and parcel of authentic kung fu.

Everytime I was taught a move, I was then shown it in application as well as in singular drill and it's place in the form and how it differs in the form and why it is different. Does my more "dynamic" class mean it is not authentic?

What you have just described is not what I had meant by "dynamic". Sparring is also part and parcel of kung fu training as long as it is not enphasised from day one.

Is the inverse true? Are all non-dynamic and non-heavy sparring classes authentic?

There are no none sparring kung fu classes that are authentic. Real kung fu needs real sparring, but not from day one.

No offence but three months of ONLY stance training smells like either proper classical styles like traditional longfist styles or one of the breathe/hard schools of shaolin, the origins of which in terms of fighting are dubious anyway.

I disagree. Importance of stance training cannot be underestimated in most authentic kung fu style training. One of the reasons that real sparring practise is carried out later on in training is to avoid the compromise of proper stance, and movement in stance, in favour of "bouncing" like a kick boxer or TKD-ist, for example.

No school I know of has students ONLY doing stance training for the first three months. On the other hand, I did spend months learning how to short bridge punch but that's not really the same and it wasn't like I never did anything else as well as that at the same time, especially seeing as part of the short bridge punching training involves sand-bag work and blood-sand.

What you are describing here sounds like good honest kung fu training, in parts peculiar to Hakka Boxing, probably Chow Gar of the Ip Shui linage. If so, this style does not stress stance training in the same way as many of the more "orthodox" kung fu styles. Congratulations, as you have probably found an authentic kung fu school.

Traditional styles do take a long time to learn all of it that can be taught but does that mean it takes ten or more years to even just learn basics because that is what is being said by some.

That will depend on ones patience/school and the century in which one may have have decided to take up kung fu. However, 10 years does sound like a bit too much.

Would you consider Wing Chun to be a traditional style?

Yes! But not the way it is being practised by most people I have seen here in London.

Historically, the style was designed to create fighters in less than five years

Yes, but the students trainned with real masters and trained everyday. And even so, some say that weapons and the principles of the style were taught first to maximise the time/effectiveness ratio of the fighters.....

with even the basics being applicable from day one.

.....and maybe that is why the basics were applicable from day one.

I mean, put it this way, the moment you are taught to punch, you are by the nature of what is to punch, taught to intercept and to step and basics of timing; at least you should be.

Without a solid stance and foundation and correct breathing the above amount to only superficial skills.

In my first class of wing chun, that was what and how I was taught.

Were you studying authentic/traditional Wing Chun or was it a modern style?

In my first class of mantis, I was taught in the same way.

It is my understanding of southern mantis that a great amount of enphasis is placed on Chi-Kung training and basics (in such a way that would probably send an average MMA-ist into eternal boredom if not a coma), of which you have not mentioned anything. Do you indeed practise Southern Hakka Praying Mantis?

[HG]

Traditional-Fist excellent post - well said.

How most people naturally deal with this type of thing is to either cover themselves or try to protect themselves/fight back in an incoherent manner, that is unless they have previous experience in another martial art.

I agree, there has to be some kind of training in place to over ride the natural fight or flight response. Repetitive drills combined with intent is a staple in our system.

I have nothing against "simple sparring" as it is part and parcel of kung fu training. What I meant is that over emphasis on so called "realistic sparring" from day one is not part and parcel of authentic kung fu.

Exactly. At this stage 'Kung Fu' goes out the window & survival mode takes over when a beginner takes a hard shot &/or starts to feel pain.

What you have just described is not what I had meant by "dynamic". Sparring is also part and parcel of kung fu training as long as it is not enphasised from day one.

The are too many essential trainings to accquire at the begining stages, putting sparring ahead of them would be a big mistake.

I disagree. Importance of stance training cannot be underestimated in most authentic kung fu style training. One of the reasons that real sparring practise is carried out later on in training is to avoid the compromise of proper stance, and movement in stance, in favour of "bouncing" like a kick boxer or TKD-ist, for example.

No stance=No kung fu. Boring and at times grueling but an absolute requirement for proper skill development. There is no shortcut around this.

Kung Fu is a demanding martial art, that being said there is a method to the madness. It kills me to watch TCMA artists bobbing up & down. All those time tested prinicples of rooting & connection gone to waste.

That will depend on ones patience/school and the century in which one may have have decided to take up kung fu. However, 10 years does sound like a bit too much.

While a huge amount of patience is required, no Kung Fu style takes ten years to learn.

Yes, but the students trainned with real masters and trained everyday. And even so, some say that weapons and the principles of the style were taught first to maximise the time/effectiveness ratio of the fighters.....

Daily training/practice & instruction from a good Sifu is a hard combination to beat.

Without a solid stance and foundation and correct breathing the above amount to only superficial skills.

Kung Fu is and always will be about hard work. Without a solid foundation of the basics to build upon, no real skill will be attained.

[shogeri]

Bushido...you are adding in much of what I leave out...I believe we are on most of the same ground with these concepts.

The TKD taught around here is sport based.

Certainly it has Martial Application, however, when you consistently teach someone point sparring and form memorization for the sake of moving them up in rank, then that is not what the original Martial Art application was meant for. I believe in teaching Martial Arts for the saking of teaching others how to dynamically express themselves in a "live" situation where the principles are consistent, but the techniques are endless and forever flowing.

Sorry, I got poetic for a moment.

Anyway, I too realize that pushing something off as a healthy alternative to, say, aerobics, is just a marketing/advertising gimmick, since when MA is taught correctly, the student will learn to do things and use muscle groups that they would not normally use in everyday situations.

When I watch UFC, and things like that, and when they get down and dirty, all I think is 'See, when applied correctly, the Martial Arts do actually work."

On the flip side, I enjoy watching K1, and boxing more than UFC. Basically because when I watch sport it is one part of my brain, and when I watch UFC, another, and when I watch Martial Art movies, still another...

Catch up with everyone later!